|
Straightening up eaters
June
15
[03:30 GMT]
–
Modernity is to blame
– First
the problem must be identified, then dealt with, then finally explained.
Obesity is the problem and all "advanced" countries are currently on board the
effort to end the "epidemic." Grant junkies are expanding their anti-fat
racket by postulating reasons why everyone is now so damn fat. Once the
causes have been identified they can be eliminated.
According
to a gang of anti-fat crusaders people are overweight because of modernity.
Here is a partial list of the specific culprits: the microwave oven,
supermarkets, technology. The microwave because it makes preparing
pre-made, and horribly unhealthy, meals as easy as one, two, three.
Supermarkets because they are emporia of calorie-rich, cheap food.
Technology because it transformed the working class from one where hard,
physical labor was normal to one in which brain is more important than
brawn. Manually working the fields and coal mines or constructing buildings
and roads by brute strength, all with an inadequate food supply may be part
of a not longed-for past but boy, those workers sure were svelte. Of course
they didn't live as long and as healthily as do today's portly workers.
Ayn Rand,
an uncompromising advocate for self-determination and individual freedom,
wrote extensively some 40 years ago how modern technology had freed billions
from the brutal slavery of having to spend their entire lives working
themselves to the bone just to maintain a barely subsistent livelihood. For
her the invention of washing machines, tractors, automobiles and all the
devices that make life easier, more comfortable and healthier was a key
component of happiness. She railed against those who derided modern
conveniences as dangerous fanatics whose supposed love of humanity masked an
ingrained misanthropy. Rand was often mislabeled a hysteric by those too
obtuse to see that the object of most do-gooders is power over their
fellows, pure and simple. The "war on obesity" and its "back to the past"
agenda reveals yet again her prescience.
June
10
[02:30 GMT]
–
Common ground
– The
North American and Western European fascination with girth is being picked up in
the People's Republic of China. No one should be surprised that the
anti-obesity agenda, based as it is on coercion, fraud and propaganda, will
prove to be a big hit in the world's largest totalitarian nation. Anti-fat
crusaders in the western democracies are green with envy at the power social
engineers in China have to boss around and bully the people. Common ground
between the "free" world and the dictatorships are due to the pre-eminence both
societies give to Big Health. Eating, smoking, drinking and "appropriate"
leisure time activities are no longer personal choices but must be regulated by
the state to maximize what it imagines to be efficiency and social cohesion.
Pharma cartel
 June
15
[03:30 GMT]
–
Antitobacco’s assumptions
– This piece concerns the ban (what else?) of cigarette displays in
convenience stores. Logical and legitimate points such as “Putting
cigarettes under the counter removes the distinction between legitimate
tax-paid tobacco products and contraband, and that could make contraband
more easy to move … the displays are unlikely to induce anyone to take up
smoking because they have made the choice to smoke by the time they get to
the counter” must be disregarded because made by the tobacco industry.
What matters,
instead, is that “it's hard to believe tobacco companies would continue
spending millions on in-store advertising if it didn't convince more people to
smoke.” Only the pharmaceutical companies, in fact, can pump millions into
antitobacco activists, doctors and drug stores to convince people of the
antismoking frauds and push their trashy quit-smoking products. Big Pharma can
support its own, but Big Tobacco cannot. That is based on the "higher" moral
grounds, set by antitobacco activists who lie for a living.
"There's also
the normalizing aspect -- you walk into a retail store and the main thing
you see behind the counter are cigarettes. It makes it seem like cigarettes are
a normal part of daily life ... when the reality is that only 20 per cent of
Canadians smoke now."
-- more like one third of the productive population, actually,
perhaps more. Let us understand that smoking is an absolutely normal
behaviour first of all, and that antitobacco’s frauds are not (and never can
be) "normal". The words of Thomas Jefferson, pronounced in 1801, come to mind:
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in
all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the
minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to
violate would be oppression”.
It is time to
“modernize” his statements according to “public health” ideology: "Bear in mind this
sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to
prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable as set by the majority
itself and according to the trash science used by authorities; that
the minority possess their equal rights only when granted through special
exemption by the majority, which will establish equality on the opinions
of health authorities. Then and only then minorities have rights that
equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Social conditioning
June
15
[03:30 GMT]
–
New Hampshire: Live Free or Die... then die!
– The smoking ban has passed the House again, however, and is tipped to go
all the way.) One of the Republicans who killed the smoking ban gave a sorrowful
quote to the New York Times: "I'm surprised that a lot of the 'Live Free or
Diers' who usually confront us with statements like 'stay out of our life' or
'we don't need more legislation' were the ones asking us to ban smoking."
Another interesting article from Reason Magazine on the death of Liberty. When
something is taken for granted, relaxation ensues – and complacency follows. Thus, what has been earned literally with blood throughout history ends up
having been for nothing. Today liberty has no defenders – at least, very few of
them. In all times, the enemies of liberty have always waved the scarecrows of
danger and risk – risk for health, for safety, for national security. They always pushed the “costs” of freedom but never those of tyranny. They
always promoted the zero risk philosophy that leads to zero tolerance, which
leads to hate, that leads to oppression, which then becomes “normal” and “fair”. And once you have been conditioned to be terrified by the thought of a cut on
your finger, or a ticket for “wrong” behaviour, you know that you are a victim
of the “zero risk” mentality. At that point, is it conceivable that you accept
the “risks” that come from fighting institutions to gain back the liberty you
lost? Of course not.
The enemies of
liberty never say that they are its enemies -- that would be too obvious. Rather, they swear
on the name of liberty: it becomes “freedom from” (smoking,
death, Jews, drinking, blacks, commies, obesity… who or what is irrelevant). The
word itself is redefined into a “common good” that no commoner ever gets to
establish. Quickly, "liberty” is reduced to conformity to decisions made by
upper echelon, while individual freedom becomes a "threat". Submissive and
obedient behaviour (no smoking, no drinking, always wearing safety belts, and so on) is
rewarded with no punishment and named “normality”. Conversely, free
behaviour is “denormalized” with hatred, punishment, junk science and
brainwashing – the “freedom from”. Be a "good" citizen, act as if
you believed the ideology. Nobody cares about your respect, anyway – all
they want is your obedience. So, choose to quit smoking, drinking;
wear that safety belt and just don't get fat: you don’t want to risk
the punishment, do you?...
Population Control
June 15
[03:30 GMT]
–
New Jersey takes action to fight kids' obesity
- As Christ multiplied fish to help people, so “public health” (our secular Christ) multiplies bureaucracy and public
waste. This time the target is child “obesity”.
Let’s see some
of the concepts
“…escalating the battle against the bulge”… (War! The holy war
of “public health”). “New Office of Nutrition and Fitness.” (Bureaucracy!)
“Coordinate programs to prevent obesity” (Militant action! Prevent!) “….the highest percentage of overweight and obese children
under age 5, at 17.7 percent” (Red alert and panic button). Of
course
there is no definition of overweight. Who needs to know? The authorities
say so, that's all you need to know, believe.
“Young people are a crucial target for the new agency because it's easier to
instil…” (Parents don’t matter, the “health authorities” are the new parents). “…tackle the obesity problem through education … rather than
by banning particular foods.” ("health" authorities have the right to
ban legal products). But in the following paragraph we read. “One goal is to
de-normalize the massive portions served in restaurants” (ban
through culture engineering).
Here is how
to make you accept it all: “He is mulling the idea of having schools
notify parents, via report cards, about children with weight
problems.” Faced with this second alternative, who would not choose the
first? After all, parents are obviously blind beside being stupid, and
notifications on children’s ignorance and bad marks have become politically
incorrect. Much better to have slim jackasses than overweight geniuses. Bad
marks are bad for low self-esteem, which may lead to smoking…
The
reference to smoking, in fact, cannot not be missed:
“Obesity has become the country's No. 2 cause of preventable death, after
smoking” (do what "public health" says, and you will not die). What's the good news? As no one death can be scientifically
demonstrated to be caused by smoking, smokers can rejoice: either obesity shifts
to the No. 1 position, or it's not that big of a problem after all.
Property rights
June 14
[03:45 GMT]
– Death
of property rights
–
Readers of this site will have notice that for the past few years we have waxed
pessimistic on the value of invoking property rights as an argument against
smoking bans. While we certainly revere property rights as an essential
component of just societies we recognize that we no longer live in a just
society, an observation that is neither original nor confined to those who have
deplored the pathology of anti-tobacco. Two years ago we released our position
on
property rights and health.
In brief we assert that in any conflict between property rights and health,
health will always prevail. Arguing against smoking bans based on the sanctity
of private property is a futile exercise because health trumps all other
values.
We have
taken a lot of heat for this view but events, sadly, have confirmed that our
position is correct. Our error, as well as that of those who still imagine
property rights to be a paramount value, was that it took us so long to
reach our conclusion. The destruction of property rights over the past 20
years was out in the open yet those of us currently fighting the
anti-tobacco agenda in FORCES were too decent and too naive to believe that
right before our eyes private property was becoming meaningless and
irrelevant. The people who continue to deploy property rights as a weapon
against smoking bans are and will cast aside their naiveté as the glaring
indecency and depravity of their opponents is revealed.
One such
revelation hit the doorsteps of Bay Area homes Wednesday with the morning
delivery of the San Francisco Chronicle. Inside were reports from city
council meetings held in two cities, Belmont and Oakland, about proposed
legislation that will ban smoking in privately-owned homes. Trivialities
differentiate the two cities' bills but at the core of both is the
explicitly stated premise that government has the authority to prohibit a
lawful consumption of a legal product within the confines of one's home. A
councilmember from Belmont couldn't be plainer when referring to banning
smoking in multiunit housing:
"We're
responding to a health and safety concern," said City councilman William
Dickenson. "We need to step back and look at what we're doing when we are
legislating in the home. We have the right to do that, but you have
to be very careful when you do that."
We have
the right, he says, and so he does. When a condition produces a health
hazard the state not only has the right but the duty to eliminate it. That
the condition exists in someone's home doesn't absolve the government of its
responsibility. Secondhand smoke, no matter where it occurs, kills
people. There is no safe exposure level for secondhand smoke so when
even an invisible, odorless, infinitesimal amount of the stuff intrudes upon
a nonsmoker it must be eradicated. Adhering to those two criteria means
that smoking cannot occur in any unit that shares common walls, ventilation
systems or common areas such as hallways or patios outdoors. Compromise,
the traditional method used to resolve conflict between individuals, is not
an option. Smoking must be forbidden completely.
From
requiring smoking sections on privately owned commercial airliners, through
mandatory smoking sections in privately owned restaurants to absolute
smoking bans in all workplaces, which include all private property where
people, either as employees or invited guests, congregate, prohibition
always prevails over the quaint notion of property rights. The only
difference between commercial private property and the home is sentiment. A
man's home is his castle, so we are taught. The castle has been breached.
When Belmont and Oakland do impose smoking bans on multiunit dwelling they
will be continuing a trend that will culminate with regulations that govern
smoking in all residences whether multiunit or not. The goal is not
to prohibit tobacco but to render the smoking of it illegal everywhere.
Invoking property
rights will not derail that goal.
Taking
on the secondhand smoke fraud head is the only rational tact to employ in
defeating the prohibitionists. Research on secondhand smoke, produced and
compiled, oddly enough, by anti-tobacco itself, exonerates secondhand smoke
as a hazard. It is a hard fact that there is not one piece of evidence,
scientific or epidemiologic, that justifies the imposition of any
smoking ban. Wasting time, money and resources on the Quixotic quest to
derail anti-tobacco's scheme with a call to respect property rights must
end. Property rights don't exist. What does exist is the proof that the
secondhand smoke scare is a deliberate, carefully orchestrated fraud. Run
with that and we will have a chance to decapitate the monstrous evil that is
anti-tobacco.
Note:
For reasons of its own the San Francisco Chronicle's online and print news
reports about the city council meetings Tuesday evening in Belmont and
Oakland differ significantly. Councilman Dickenson's death knell quote, for
instance, on property rights appears only in the print version. We have
included a link to the online version as well as one to an image of the
print version.
Online version
Print version (page 1)
Print version (page 2)
Prohibition
June 13
[04:00 GMT]
–
How far will they go?
-
Belmont
California is a suburb south of San Francisco. To the glee of its mayor and
a few of its city councilmembers the town has attracted international
attention as the first to propose banning smoking in private homes. That
the attention has been overwhelmingly negative outside of California adds
icing to the prohibitionists' cake. We're soooo progressive, they coo to
themselves and soooo brave.
Our
coverage in March detailed the extent to which anti-tobacco, the
pharmaceutical industry and its stooges in government are willing to go to
inflict discrimination on a targeted group of people who are lawfully enjoy
a legal product. We noted that the legislation was written by an attorney
who works for an anti-smoking organization that is funded by a
pharmaceutical front group. We marvelled that legislation banning smoking
in apartments, as well as outside of those apartments, was the heavy-handed
response to one person in a old folks home who claimed, without any
evidence, that he was made ill by his smoking neighbors. We asserted then
as we assert now that those city council members, as well as the mayor,
having at their finger tips all the resources available to legislators,
including legal advice, know full well that the hazards the
legislation claims to address do not exist. Our current update concerns a
few points culled from the San Francisco Chronicle on the town meeting that
would be held Tuesday evening.
City
Councilman William Dickenson said he thinks the council is ready to move
forward with legislation that restricts smoking in multi-unit buildings as
long as civil liberties are also protected and designated smoking areas are
set aside.
"I
want to be fair,'' said Dickenson. "I want to be aware of the minority and
the rights they also have. It's not just rule by majority."
Civil
liberties obviously don't mean much to a man who believes they encompass
forbidding apartment dwellers from smoking in the homes they pay for. He is
right when he says the rule is not made by the majority since, if passed, it
will have been made by the handful of residents who are councilmembers, as
well, of course, by the one old man whose delusional complaints got the band
rolling. Across the bay in Oakland the city council is also poised to "make
history" by prohibiting smoking in multiunit dwellings. This ordinance will
be discussed in City Hall, also on Tuesday.
Oakland councilwoman Jane Brunner said Monday that she cannot support restricting
the rights of smokers to light up in their own homes.
We
expect that Councilwoman Brunner will have been a lone voice of decency at
the Tuesday meeting in city hall. Congratulations are in order although it
is positively chilling that her sentiment is now the apparent exception in
Belmont, Oakland and other American cities. When America was civilized and not
under the sway of corporate mercantile interests, as seen by the
pharmaceutical industry's influence in Belmont and every other place where
smoking bans are imposed or proposed, her support of the most basic of
property rights would have been the rule and would never have had to be
expressed.
What's
missing from this story is any appearance by the American Civil Liberties
Union. In years past the ACLU tepidly supported a few individuals crushed
by anti-tobacco but as we come to a point in history where residents are
forbidden to smoke in their own, privately-owned homes, the ACLU is missing
in action. Rest assured, had Belmont touched smokers of medical marijuana
in this despicable legislation the ACLU would be trumpeting and litigating
its opposition. Sadly, the ACLU is just another co-opted organization whose
leadership supports the goals of anti-tobacco and its pharmaceutical
patrons. The smokers in
Belmont are on their own as will be all smokers unless they rise up and
loudly proclaim that they will not take this oppression any longer.
Prohibition
 June
13
[04:00 GMT]
–
Afraid of the paper tiger
– “Defiant MPs at the House of Commons are planning to ignore the national
smoking ban being imposed on the rest of the country next month. From July 1,
anyone lighting up in pubs, clubs, restaurants and offices in
England faces a
£50 fine. And authorities have decided to extend the ban to Westminster - which
has traditionally been exempt from many laws because of its status as a palace -
to avoid charges of ‘hypocrisy’. But politicians are plotting to continue
smoking in their own offices, which they usually share with just an assistant. …
One veteran MP, who does not wish to be named, said: ‘I don't see why I can't
continue to smoke in the privacy of my own office?“
He will see it since it is the social/cultural engineering agenda to control
our behaviour and to promote pharmaceuticals. It is to show to all
that “public health”, never elected by the people, is in charge -
politically - to the point of punishing whatever behaviour it does not like,
even harmless ones. It is to make the point (and set the precedent) that
private property and personal rights mean nothing next to an institutional fraud
– nothing at all, Mr. anonymous MP.
Furthermore,
there should be very little to “plot” about. Smoking is a right, the “dangers”
of passive smoke are a fraud. Smoking is our culture, while not one death can be
scientifically proven to be caused by smoking. A fraud-based law that oppresses
the liberty of any “minority” is to be ignored by all – for if the heaven of
some is to be the hell others, then the ruler can only be the Devil. One thing
is certain, anyway: plotting and hiding will not cut it. Either one bends
over in the name of “health” or smokes – right in their faces – in the name of
freedom: heroes in disguise are jokes in the making.
Understanding the obvious
June
13
[04:00 GMT]
–
Who cares about tuberculosis? What really matters is that airplanes are “smoke
free” now… that’s a triumph of “public health”!
– The
fact that "public health" has its priorities skewed is as given as its thirst
for power and control. Its real and ONLY mandate -- control and possibly
eliminate contagious disease – is now secondary to playing God with the
lifestyle of citizens. This article by Reason Magazine is our recommended
reading for this week.
'…But
at least in dealing with potentially deadly microorganisms that move from person
to person, the rationale for government action is to prevent people from harming
each other. By contrast, much of what passes for "public health" today is aimed
at preventing people from harming themselves”
– when they actually do that and when “public health” does not make up those
risks with junk science and false information, we should add. “Activists and
politicians use the language of public health to legitimize government efforts
to discourage a wide range of risky habits, including smoking, drinking,
overeating, underexercising, gambling, driving a car without a seat belt, and
riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Unlike typhoid fever and tuberculosis, the
risks associated with these activities are not imposed on people; they are
voluntarily assumed.'
Hate
 June
12
[03:00 GMT]
–
Smoker
as Nigger
– The
title is incendiary but the use of society's most despicable slur is not
gratuitous. Nor does the subject matter have anything to do with race,
although racism, along with human kind's long list of other destructive
pathologies, is central to this article.
Donald Homa is a cognitive psychologist in the Department of Psychology at ASU. We are glad to publish the article he has sent. “I became involved in this
issue - the dangers of secondhand smoke - some years ago, and have had extended
articles printed in a number of newspapers, but no one here would publish a
recent article of mine, which I've included as an attachment”, he writes to
us – and we are certainly not surprised the mainstream media hopes it remains
hidden. Dr. Homa exposes the passive smoke for
what it is: a
fraud institutions should be ashamed of, driven by vitriolic hatred to
“denigrate and vulgarize the smoker. Arizona has seen television spots in which
the smoker is urinated on by a dog, and an unsuspecting young lady drinks the
phlegm of a smoker”. Political terror and intimidation control the press
these days on the issue of smoking and health in general. Even the slightest
indication of the truth – that the health authorities are divulging false
information to instigate hatred – is enough to censor any information right out . The media must "help" the people
believe
that passive smoke kills, so people can have licence to hate. Hatred,
so anti-tobacco thinks, will
eventually drive smoking out of society.
That is the
ultimate mistake, however. It is true that antitobacco is out of control;
it is true that there is hatred without limitation. But it is also true that,
around the world, a rapidly growing number of smokers is getting ready to lower
themselves to the level of their enemies, and to get down to the dirty job of
making them understand that they will be those who are urinated on – and
forced to swallow the phlegm of their own hatred. Because even the “niggers”,
one day, will decide that they have had enough.
Futility
 June
12
[03:00 GMT]
–
Let’s just say
at the outset that we really don’t want to spoil the party. We hope and trust
that everyone who attends the FOREST UK’s smoking ban protest event “Revolt
In Style: A Freedom Dinner” at London’s Savoy Hotel at the end of June will
have a wonderful time, and that the event will stimulate all in attendance to
think about how to actively fight Britain’s smoking ban -- and, indeed, the
whole repressive suite of government controls that are seeping into so many
aspects of daily life in the UK.
That said, we
can’t help but shake our heads at the, well, subtly discouraging tone that
FOREST, not for the first time, is taking to the whole question of how people
should respond to threats to their freedoms.
That tone,
simultaneously faux-angry and coy, is evident in one of the slogans for the
event: “Revolt in style? You can’t do that?!!” Well, ladies and gentlemen, there
is no revolt here. The dinner will be held BEFORE the smoking ban goes into
effect, so no tuxedoed torsos will be going limp in the time-honoured fashion of
non-violent protest as the police haul revellers off the dance floor and into
paddy wagons. Nor is FOREST, to the best of our knowledge, planning an
indoor party for
AFTER the ban, when to wilfully smoke at such an event would directly challenge
the law and indeed constitute a revolt. Thus, the exercise, complete with the
debut of a new song of resigned but dutiful obedience (it’s entitled “I’m Going
Outside”) risks appearing more like a wistful send-off to a way of life than a
determined battle cry to preserve it.
Yes, we no
doubt sound churlish. But many veteran fighters against smoking bans have been
around long enough to see tobacco company money used repeatedly for slick public
relations exercises and crowd control – a way of helping smokers let off
a bit of steam before “adjusting” to the repression that Big Tobacco has in many
cases long ago made its peace with. We can only hope that the FOREST dinner will
get at least some of the prominent attendees who have expressed their disgust at
the smoking ban to start fighting this repression in earnest. If the dinner is
the start of something political, rather than merely a stylish teary-eyed
capitulation, we will be pleased. But we’re not counting on it. For that, we are
counting on ourselves.
Let no junk science go punished
June 12
[03:00 GMT]
–
Microwaves may be to blame for kick-starting the obesity epidemic, a UK junk
scientist suggests
– For a long time establishing “causality” no longer requires science but
just junk epidemiology. However, let no one stop “progress” and further simplify the
process. The pretence of a junk study is no longer needed: all it takes is
the “expert” opinion of junk scientists, and the junk media (such as BBC has
become) will rush to report the latest and greatest nonsense. A few more opinions
like these, and it will become a “scientific consensus” -- thus hard
scientific evidence at the basis of some new prohibition. Yes, today it’s
that simple! But what are we talking about?... The reason why we are (statistically)
fat: the invention of the microwave oven!! Read the rest of the article
and have fun – but also get the dark, deep and retrograde message of these
“public health” representatives.
A few flags
may be useful: "Co-op
introduced the supermarket retail format to Britain, heralding the late 20th
century food revolution in which prices have tumbled, car use rocketed, physical
activity plummeted and the NHS was born which picks up the pieces."
Let’s set the record straight: the NHS was (and is) a social contract
to provide the British public with the medical care regardless of its
lifestyle – it is not a saviour or a benefactor. In fact, the British public compulsorily
pays for it. Thus it is no free service and it is not there to “pick up the
pieces”. Thus it is no leader to follow to perdition hell. In short, the NHS is at
the orders of the citizens (smokers and “fatsos” included),
not the other way around.
The implied
solutions? Physical activity must be
mandated, cars suppressed and
the cost of food must skyrocket! Is that how “public health” will
“teach” the lower classes (the fattest and the smokiest)
their place once again? Poor Thatcher, all that work for nothing: the class system
is back in white coats!
The absurd message is not over yet. “…The
current obesity epidemic can be tracked back to 1945 and the end of the
Second World War. The end of the war saw technology starting to replace physical
effort in both work and leisure.“ It does not take a rocket scientist to draw the conclusion that technology
should be replaced with physical effort in a glorious return to the Middle Ages
thanks to a “health-conscious”, “environment conscious” obscurantism. Too bad that
then the average age was 30 or so. "We're the only
generation where there's never been a shortage of food, so that's a major
thing." Food shortages, come back. Why, with all our "bad"
habits and "epidemics", we are the longest-lived generation ever is not
explained.
Incoherence
June 12
[03:00 GMT]
–
Contradiction trips up global warming hysterics
–
"Thick
Arctic ice may be the reason for a precipitous drop in this spring's two-month
gray whale count at Point Piedras Blancas."
The first
line of this story is a puzzle. Thick Arctic ice? Thick Arctic ice in the
era of global warming? Thick Arctic ice that apparently has reduced the
number of gray whale calves? Haven't we been told incessantly that the
polar ice caps are disappearing because of all the green house gasses we
pesky humans are emitting? How did this story bypass the anthropogenic
climate change mainstream filter, especially mere months after the world was
treated to the heart-rending image of stranded polar bears
floating to their doom
on
a dwindling iceberg? The photographer of the dramatic picture, by the way,
was mighty
irritated
that her work was used to fan global warming hysteria, especially since the
bears in the photo were fat and happy and the picture was taken in the
summer, when icebergs tend to melt.
Thick Ice
is making it impossible for gray whales to breed, and thin ice is making it
impossible for polar bears to eat and global warming can actually accomplish
this in the same year, in the same place, using the same data. Amazing.
Whale researchers can look at the data, determine the Ice is too thick and
is killing the whales. Polar Bear researchers then look at the exact same
data, conclude that the Arctic ice is thinning and killing the polar bears
and both can agree that it is global warming.
When grant
junkies are chasing research dollars and the latest fad is global warming
the "researchers" will ensure that the thesis of their research is tied to
global warming. Many of these researchers don't care that the data from one
group differs from their own research, they simply need to secure the grant
money which pleases the academia bosses and maintains the job. The
contradictions in human-caused climate changes are becoming as apparent as
the contradictions that riddle the anti-smoking movement.
Propaganda and fraud
June 11
[02:00 GMT]
–
Do the math
–
Ottawa
County in Michigan proposes to ban smoking outdoors based on what may appear
on the surface as some very scary sounding numbers. Add in some extreme
speculation presented as fact, mention "the children"
and....PRESTO....another oppressive ban takes shape.
Some quick
and honest fifth grade level math reveals the reality of the "problem". The
cigarette butts picked up by these volunteers weigh in at about 200 lbs.
Stating that this accounts for "62%" of the total of 20,000 lbs of garbage
picked up is not just fudging the numbers. This is an out and out fraudulent
lie.....off by a factor of 62 since the correct percentage is 1.
Approximately ten tons of garbage was removed from Ottawa County's
beaches last year. If nary a butt had been on the beach, they still would
have picked up....that's right....approximately ten tons of garbage.
Outdoor bans based on litter have become an ever-more popular method of
pushing smokers around and whether it has to do with beach butts or Second
Hand Smoke casualties, the antis seem to have no problem convincing the
masses and the politicians that 2 + 2 = 42.
Their lies become bolder and their rhetoric more shrill with each ban that
passes. At what point will we-the-people take back, by whatever means
necessary, the rights and dignity they so gleefully strip from all of us.
Population control
June
11
[02:00 GMT]
–
No more adoption for smokers
- The massage of "public health" is clear: smokers no longer belong in society. They are not welcome in public places, on the
job, and as parents – even of the adoptive kind. This is the process of denormalization of a time honoured-habit for which not one death can be
demonstrated to be caused by.
We are proud to
be smokers, and happy to be different than what "public health" represents
today, which we can neither respect nor, unfortunately, ignore.
The social
damage caused by the antismoking mentality is truly unbounded. n this case,
children lose the opportunity of having a family because of a false
representation of the effects of passive smoke on health by public institutions. But it goes even deeper than that: only the non smoking Master Race can adopt
children, as they must be "protected" from such a "terrible" display (the parent
smoking!) -- or they risk choosing a lifestyle contrary to socio-pharmaceutical engineering. How terrible for "public health", having
people making their own choices! Such despicable behaviour must be prevented!
So, no adoptive
smoking families for children anymore – unless, of course, the candidate parents
can demonstrate that they have bended to the "right" ideology. Well, here is a
ready-made excuse for you: children today are such an aggravation, aren’t
they? You spend your money and your life to raise them, and you don’t even
get to form them they way you want, as "public health" knows what’s good for
them: form them into little health Nazis clones and even turn them against you
as needed, so that the "health" ideology it can be perpetuated. Much better to keep on smoking -- and to show "public health" how wrong
it is.
Prohibition
June 11
[02:00 GMT]
–
Fashionable bigotry
–
Recently The Disney Enterprise people enacted a severe smoking ban at their
Disney location in Orlando, Florida. This ban makes a complete mockery of
the fact that Walt Disney himself was a smoker. The site we link to is a
hate-filled site with a photo of Walt smoking. Underneath, the statement
reads "Disneyland lung cancer". For kicks contrast the anti-smoking cretin
pictured at the top with the smoking Walt Disney and ask yourself which of
the two makes a positive contribution to society.
Now, aside
from the fact that nobody knows what really causes cancer, although
industrial pollution and radiation fallout are leading contenders, banning
smoking at Disneyland is a classic example of biting the hand that
feeds you. The hypocrisy surrounding this decision is staggering. The
vilification of the man who started this huge enterprise and from which
EVERY SINGLE person employed at the resorts owes their paycheques, is
intolerable.
Straightening up eaters
June 11
[02:00 GMT]
–
The Department of Fat
– In
New Jersey the power of the state is coming down hard on the tubby,
establishing a new department to shape up the people, especially the
children. The new Office of Nutrition and Fitness will oversee
programs to slim down the tykes through education, support groups, physical
activity and the de-normalization of particular culinary practices.
The commissar in charge of the new department is considering having the
public schools nag parents whose offspring are judged too heavy. While
the goals and especially the budget of the new department are fairly sparse
there is a well-known phenomenon where government agencies and departments
inevitably metastasize and becoming more dictatorial. New Jersey
doesn't often assume a trend-setting role but rest assured that 49 state
governments are enviously looking at that state's fat department and making
plans to get one of their own.
Smokers
June 11
[02:00 GMT]
–
A concentrate of virtues against the anti-smoking tyranny
- Germany's most well-known heavy smoker, former Chancellor (1974-1982) Helmut
Schmidt recently announced that he's been a cigarette smoker for 70 years now.
His equally chain-smoking wife took up the habit even longer ago. In TV
interviews, the 88-year-old Schmidt is never seen without his menthol ciggies.
"I smoke everywhere, except in a church", especially in the presence of
American TV journalists. The inventor of the G8 summits also claims
to have special permission by the fire department to light up in non-smoking
areas of the Hamburg Thalia Theatre.
When launching
its new interview series with him ("A Cigarette with Helmut Schmidt"), German
leading weekly newspaper "Die Zeit" Editor-in-Chief Giovanni Di Lorenzo
complained about a small number of militants writing protest letters against
Schmidt and his smoking lifestyle. Di Lorenzo defended Schmidt as a "concentrate
of virtues". Schmidt: "The anti-smoking campaign will end up exactly as the
prohibition in the
USA 80 years
ago."
By the way,
Helmut Schmidt is the only person still alive after whom a university in Germany
is named. Talk about role models for young people: would you rather be a
smoker like him or a non smoker like Adolph?
|